Bradley Manning wants to undergo hormone therapy and live as a woman and also be known as Chelsea Manning. Fine, I have no problem with that desire. Whether a prisoner should be allowed to do that and be transferred to a female prison is another question for another time. What struck me as odd is that I am seeing articles written about Manning which are now referring to Manning using female pronouns. I understand that corresponds with Manning’s request, but is that how journalists should write about him?

Manning was sentenced to 35 years in prison on Wednesday for leaking hundreds of thousands of classified documents. She was found guilty of 20 counts, six of them under the Espionage Act, but her lawyers argued during the trial that Manning was acting out of a sense of duty to her country.

The point of this post is not to bash transgenders, but to discuss when society, especially journalists, start to refer to a man as a woman or vice versa. It seems that someone simply stating “I want to be a woman” should not be enough for a journalist to write about that person as though he is a woman. At some point I will recognize the change in gender of a person, but that point is not when the person simply tells me he wants to be a different gender and I think journalists should definitely not refer to him as “her” because that is not accurate.

edit - I changed the title because this isn't really a discussion about Manning so much as a discussion about gender assignment.

What's Silverjon's connection to this? I'd like to discuss this with someone who is very familiar with the subject. I'm not as I don't know anyone who has undergone this.

I understand that a person has the right to determine their gender, or at least their gender identity. Some may disagree, but I don't. A man can decide that he wants to live as a woman and can make that desire public, but should at that point other people say that he is no longer a man? To me it seems reminiscent of Micheal Scott yelling that he is declaring bankruptcy and thinking that he had now done all that was needed.

This is not the same thing as friends supporting Manning by referring to him as "her." We're talking about journalists who are writing stories with a female as the subject when that is not true.

I understand that a person has the right to determine their gender, or at least their gender identity.

I think a key point is that someone like manning isn't determining his or her gender or gender identity. Manning was born with a female mindset but a male body. That wasn't her choice any more than it was your choice to be born with a male mindset and a pair of McNutts.

So when you say...

Quote from: McNutt

It seems that someone simply stating “I want to be a woman” should not be enough for a journalist to write about that person as though he is a woman. At some point I will recognize the change in gender of a person, but that point is not when the person simply tells me he wants to be a different gender and I think journalists should definitely not refer to him as “her” because that is not accurate.

It's not really "I want to be a woman" but instead "I have been a woman all along and I am just now deciding to make it public."

But since there's no magic test you can take to determine (or prove) your gender identity, there's no way to tell if someone is telling the truth or not, other than trust.

I understand that corresponds with Manning’s request, but is that how journalists should write about him?

Yes, that is how they should refer to her.

Quote

It seems that someone simply stating “I want to be a woman” should not be enough for a journalist to write about that person as though he is a woman.

Manning did not say she "wants to be a woman," but she has come out and said that while her biological sex is male, her gender *is* female. Gender is a mental state, not the parts between your legs. When a person identifies as transgendered and announces an intention to transition, at that point it is appropriate to refer to that person by their self-identified gender.

It is a modern usage, and not a universal one. It is one that is starting to catch on, however, and I can see it becoming standard in another generation.

The idea is that 'sex' refers to a physical status - chromosomes, plumbing. Gender, on the other hand, is used to refer to a social role and/or construct. It has been used in certain social sciences this way for decades.

Like I said, it isn't a universal usage, but it does provide a word for a concept that is becoming more relevant to society, and I have no problem watching the language get tweaked a little in this regard.

Journalists aren't there to enforce anyone's (perceived) rules of society, nor are they (nor should they be) the arbiters of such rules.

Further, a journalist who refers to someone in a way they may (for whatever reason) find inaccurate or offensive might be subject to litigation in some cases. When Prince changed his name to (unpronounceable symbol), journalists went along. It's his right to be called whatever he wants (newsflash: his real name wasn't Prince, either). So if Bradley Manning announces that she is now Chelsea Manning, and wants to be referred to as female, why should she not be afforded that?

Finally, "journalists" is not a monolithic entity. Different journalists may have different approaches. But laws and journalistic ethics drive a lot of what they do.

Gender and sex are different things. You have have XY chromosomes but a female gender identity, or XX chromosomes and a male gender identity.

But I'm not sure how gender confusion is a passable standard for what constitutes one's gender just because someone believes it to be true.

Then it's a good thing for transgendered people that you don't get a say.

This eschews the point and I'm going to choose to ignore it.

There are people all over the world who see reality in a way that is contrary to reality. How is it that if someone says they feel like a woman even though they are a man suddenly validate the misconception? Rather than it being looked at as a mental issue like so many other mental disconnects?

When Prince changed his name to (unpronounceable symbol), journalists went along. It's his right to be called whatever he wants (newsflash: his real name wasn't Prince, either). So if Bradley Manning announces that she is now Chelsea Manning, and wants to be referred to as female, why should she not be afforded that?

Has silverjon made her way over to GT yet? This is a topic for her. I think you are supposed to respect the person's gender identity. It's their choice, not yours.

Yeah, it's a politeness/respect issue. If the person's (the Journalist in this case) goal is to disrespect the person's chosen identity, that's what it is. Think Bill Parcells calling Terry Glen 'she'. Of course, people (and journalists) are under no mandate to be polite and respectful, but they will be judged as such by those who would rather see them be polite and respectful. It's generally seen as being childish, but it can be effective.

There are people all over the world who see reality in a way that is contrary to reality. How is it that if someone says they feel like a woman even though they are a man suddenly validate the misconception? Rather than it being looked at as a mental issue like so many other mental disconnects?

They aren't denying reality. They are stating that 'male' and 'female' applies to more than just the number of penises present. It refers to that, it refers to how one sees ones's psyche, and it refers to how one fits in with society. If someone is physically male, but associates more closely with female, and prefers to fit into society as a female, than why should we tell them that they can only choose based on one of the three criteria, and the one that actually has the least to do with how they live their lives from day to day?

There are people all over the world who see reality in a way that is contrary to reality. How is it that if someone says they feel like a woman even though they are a man suddenly validate the misconception? Rather than it being looked at as a mental issue like so many other mental disconnects?

So you're saying that transgendered people are mentally ill. They are not. Gender is much more than just your genetics or body parts. Transgendered people are a deeply mistreated and misunderstood portion of society. They don't have a "misconception" about their gender -- you do.

ATB, consider someone born with both types of genitals. Do you think that by removing the female set it will make the person identify as a male? But if you had removed the male set you think they would have identified as a female?

There are people all over the world who see reality in a way that is contrary to reality. How is it that if someone says they feel like a woman even though they are a man suddenly validate the misconception? Rather than it being looked at as a mental issue like so many other mental disconnects?

So you're saying that transgendered people are mentally ill. They are not. Gender is much more than just your genetics or body parts. Transgendered people are a deeply mistreated and misunderstood portion of society. They don't have a "misconception" about their gender -- you do.

this. ATB when your statement includes the words " gender confusion" it shows your personal bias. The fact is that Chelsea Manning is in no way confused about her gender. The desire to go through hormone therapy, is not something a person "confused" about their gender would be willing to do.

It is a modern usage, and not a universal one. It is one that is starting to catch on, however, and I can see it becoming standard in another generation.

The idea is that 'sex' refers to a physical status - chromosomes, plumbing. Gender, on the other hand, is used to refer to a social role and/or construct. It has been used in certain social sciences this way for decades.

Like I said, it isn't a universal usage, but it does provide a word for a concept that is becoming more relevant to society, and I have no problem watching the language get tweaked a little in this regard.

It's really not accurate. Gender's primary definition is grammar related, the secondary is sex. I cringe every time it's used in the above manner.

It is a modern usage, and not a universal one. It is one that is starting to catch on, however, and I can see it becoming standard in another generation.

The idea is that 'sex' refers to a physical status - chromosomes, plumbing. Gender, on the other hand, is used to refer to a social role and/or construct. It has been used in certain social sciences this way for decades.

Like I said, it isn't a universal usage, but it does provide a word for a concept that is becoming more relevant to society, and I have no problem watching the language get tweaked a little in this regard.

It's really not accurate. Gender's primary definition is grammar related, the secondary is sex. I cringe every time it's used in the above manner.

A word was needed that was related to maleness/femaleness, but which wasn't sex, so that it could be separated from the issue of reproductive organs or genetic sex. Gender served that purpose as well as any other word. It's hardly uncommon, or a misuse of language, for a word to slowly accrue a new meaning.

Are you sure silverjon identifies as "she"? I could have sworn not, but maybe I just missed it.

While I was waiting to be able to reply, it slipped my mind that this had come up.

If you met me IRL, you would almost certainly be inclined to use she/her pronouns, and I wouldn't object because that doesn't make me uncomfortable. I don't object to use of he/him pronouns about me on the internet because that doesn't make me uncomfortable either. I am biologically female but very much indifferent to people's perceptions of my gender, such that I am not usually bothered to correct them or mention it unless directly relevant to the discussion. Which it's really not when I am blathering about playing computer games.

Not much to say on the he/she timing in articles but what about timing for say bathroom usage? I believe that after a co-worker underwent transgender therapy or surgery or whatever it was to go from he to she, the company let other females know that the individual was going to be using the ladies bathroom from now on. I have no idea of the extent of the changes she underwent before deciding to do this step or how far along in the process she was.

There are people all over the world who see reality in a way that is contrary to reality. How is it that if someone says they feel like a woman even though they are a man suddenly validate the misconception? Rather than it being looked at as a mental issue like so many other mental disconnects?

If a male says they feel like a woman, how is that contrary to reality?

ATB, consider someone born with both types of genitals. Do you think that by removing the female set it will make the person identify as a male? But if you had removed the male set you think they would have identified as a female?

Do people born with both genitals have standard male/female chromosome make-ups?

ATB, consider someone born with both types of genitals. Do you think that by removing the female set it will make the person identify as a male? But if you had removed the male set you think they would have identified as a female?

Do people born with both genitals have standard male/female chromosome make-ups?

Ale

Good question; I wasn't sure either.

From Wikipedia it appears that having both sets usually means you have both an XX and an XY pair, but from looking at this article, there's a variety of ways that you could have a normal XX or XY pair but exhibit the opposite type of genitals at birth.

I found the above interesting, but just for clarity, being transgender doesn't necessarily mean you have a chromosomal situation like in that link above.

There are people all over the world who see reality in a way that is contrary to reality. How is it that if someone says they feel like a woman even though they are a man suddenly validate the misconception? Rather than it being looked at as a mental issue like so many other mental disconnects?

If a male says they feel like a woman, how is that contrary to reality?

Ale

If a man says he's feels like a monkey, how is that contrary to reality?

Fact is, no one has actually dared to answer ATB's question. If a man says he feels like he's female, that's accepted - at least by many. But if he said he feels like he's a monkey and starts going around acting like monkey, I think most people would say he's got a problem. So what is the principle for distinguishing between the two? Is there a principle involved, or it is just arbitrary?

There are people all over the world who see reality in a way that is contrary to reality. How is it that if someone says they feel like a woman even though they are a man suddenly validate the misconception? Rather than it being looked at as a mental issue like so many other mental disconnects?

If a male says they feel like a woman, how is that contrary to reality?

Ale

If a man says he's feels like a monkey, how is that contrary to reality?

Fact is, no one has actually dared to answer ATB's question. If a man says he feels like he's female, that's accepted - at least by many. But if he said he feels like he's a monkey and starts going around acting like monkey, I think most people would say he's got a problem. So what is the principle for distinguishing between the two? Is there a principle involved, or it is just arbitrary?

Theres a huge difference between issues of trans-gender and issues of trans-species. There is plenty of medical evidence that supports trans-gender issues, Im not aware of any medical evidence supporting trans-species.

There are people all over the world who see reality in a way that is contrary to reality. How is it that if someone says they feel like a woman even though they are a man suddenly validate the misconception? Rather than it being looked at as a mental issue like so many other mental disconnects?

If a male says they feel like a woman, how is that contrary to reality?

Ale

If a man says he's feels like a monkey, how is that contrary to reality?

Fact is, no one has actually dared to answer ATB's question. If a man says he feels like he's female, that's accepted - at least by many. But if he said he feels like he's a monkey and starts going around acting like monkey, I think most people would say he's got a problem. So what is the principle for distinguishing between the two? Is there a principle involved, or it is just arbitrary?

Theres a huge difference between issues of trans-gender and issues of trans-species. There is plenty of medical evidence that supports trans-gender issues, Im not aware of any medical evidence supporting trans-species.

This is the same spurious comparison that people make about gay marriage: If we let a man marry another man, what's to stop a man from marrying a dog?

They are not at all the same thing and saying such things just show ignorance. The reason no one answered that question is that it's not a real question. It's ridiculous.

It's also worth pointing out that transgenderism isn't something that just popped up in the last decade or even the last century. This is something that's been around for all of recorded human history. It's also something that happens for animals other than humans, just like homosexuality.

And I think of this as common knowledge, but just in case, when a human develops in the womb you don't binary grow one or the other depending on your chromosomes. A clitoris turns into the head of the penis, and labia lips seal up to become the scrotum. As for internal structure, my biology knowledge falls apart a bit here but I'm pretty sure we're start out with vague ducts for both that either grow into one or the other or degenerate depending on what hormones are present during fetal development.

Gender is more of a spectrum than we think, and when you add in other species that have both genders (as their norm) or even the ability to swap genders, for me it just doesn't seem like a stretch to believe the possibility of someone getting physical characteristics for one and the mental characteristics of the other.

Calling her by the gender she identifies with should happen as soon as it is requested by the person involved. Things like possibly putting her into a female prison, that is a whole other sticky subject that I have no idea what to do.

There are people all over the world who see reality in a way that is contrary to reality. How is it that if someone says they feel like a woman even though they are a man suddenly validate the misconception? Rather than it being looked at as a mental issue like so many other mental disconnects?

So you're saying that transgendered people are mentally ill. They are not. Gender is much more than just your genetics or body parts. Transgendered people are a deeply mistreated and misunderstood portion of society. They don't have a "misconception" about their gender -- you do.

this. ATB when your statement includes the words " gender confusion" it shows your personal bias. The fact is that Chelsea Manning is in no way confused about her gender. The desire to go through hormone therapy, is not something a person "confused" about their gender would be willing to do.

I'm sorry, but no. We may live in a time where anyone can do as they wish and what they think is accepted as their reality, but it is a legitimate psychological disorder however imperfectly framed.

And I only asked a question, I didn't show any bias in any way.

Quote

So you're saying that transgendered people are mentally ill.

Always easy for you to go to extremes conclusive leaps. And stop trying to pick a fight.

True, but I'm not sure how your point or the link is relevant to this conversation.

Quote

They aren't denying reality. They are stating that 'male' and 'female' applies to more than just the number of penises present. It refers to that, it refers to how one sees ones's psyche, and it refers to how one fits in with society.

Thank you for actually trying to answer the question. But I have to ask again, just because one's psyche tells them something does not make it true, so why do we say 'ok, fine, you're a female' instead of 'treating' the disconnect. If someone puts their right shoe on their left foot and vice versa and we say hey it's true to them, this still does not make it so.

Quote

If someone is physically male, but associates more closely with female, and prefers to fit into society as a female, than why should we tell them that they can only choose based on one of the three criteria, and the one that actually has the least to do with how they live their lives from day to day?

You're addressing two different things. How they perceive themselves/how they fit in society vs the biological fact that they are one sex or the other (avoiding the complexities that I don't really understand about hermaphrodites) . It's too vastly different things and I'm asking questions about the latter.

Quote

Theres a huge difference between issues of trans-gender and issues of trans-species. There is plenty of medical evidence that supports trans-gender issues, Im not aware of any medical evidence supporting trans-species.

We're splitting hairs now. The larger issue is the disconnect between the person's mental state and the physical reality.

Quote

This is the same spurious comparison that people make about gay marriage: If we let a man marry another man, what's to stop a man from marrying a dog? They are not at all the same thing and saying such things just show ignorance. The reason no one answered that question is that it's not a real question. It's ridiculous.

No it's not. If he had said superhero instead of monkey, the question is still the same. You're assertion is the spurious one. And it is a real question. Stop looking for a boogy man. There isn't one in this conversation.

Quote

Gender is more of a spectrum than we think, and when you add in other species that have both genders (as their norm) or even the ability to swap genders, for me it just doesn't seem like a stretch to believe the possibility of someone getting physical characteristics for one and the mental characteristics of the other.

Now this is interesting. I know about species that can switch genders, but that's a specialized function for them. However, if one is given the physicalness of x and the mental characteristics of y wouldn't that confirm the idea that something wasn't quite right (and I don't say that judgmentally). I'd like some links about gender spectrum if you have em.